EVIDENCE — FREE MBE PRACTICE QUESTIONS
A free sample of NCBE-style Evidence questions with full per-choice explanations. Click “Reveal” after you commit to an answer. Pair these with the Evidence Master Outline and its one-sheet.
📝 Want the full bank? These are a free sample. Drill thousands of NCBE-style MBE questions — with per-choice rationales, named trap analysis, an adaptive weak-spot engine, and a predicted-score tracker — at MBEMax. Your first 10 MBE questions and the entire MPRE bank are free. Part of the ALL4JDS / Bar Exam Project family.
QUESTION 1 — Evidence - Compromise Negotiations (medium)
In a negligence suit after a warehouse collision, plaintiff's counsel emailed defendant's insurer: We will settle for $200,000 if you admit fault was shared. At trial, defendant offered the email to show plaintiff believed fault was shared. Is the email admissible?
(A) Yes, because plaintiff's belief about fault is always relevant and not hearsay.
(B) Yes, because the statement is offered to prove liability, not to prove the truth of settlement terms.
(C) No, because FRE 408 excludes statements made in compromise negotiations offered to prove or disprove liability.
(D) No, only if the parties had not yet filed a formal settlement agreement.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: C. Correct. FRE 408 bars evidence of statements made during compromise negotiations offered to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement.
Why the others are wrong:
(A) Incorrect. Settlement communications are excluded even when they contain admissions about fault.
(B) Incorrect. Using the statement to show plaintiff's belief about fault still exploits a compromise communication about disputed liability.
(D) Incorrect. FRE 408 applies to compromise negotiations whether or not a final settlement agreement exists.
Black-letter rule: FRE 408 excludes evidence of statements made during compromise negotiations offered to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement.
Trap: Admits compromise emails because they show party belief rather than offer terms.
Memory hook: FRE 408: settlement talk can't prove who's at fault.
QUESTION 2 — Hearsay - Public Records Exception for Absence of Record (medium)
Prosecution sought to prove defendant never registered a business license. A certified statement from the city clerk, prepared after diligent search, certified that no record of defendant's license existed in the official licensing database. Is the clerk's certification admissible to prove nonregistration?
(A) Yes, under FRE 803(10) as evidence of the absence of a public record if the custodian certifies diligent search.
(B) Yes, as nonhearsay because it proves the clerk's search procedure, not license status.
(C) No, because only positive public records are admissible under FRE 803(8).
(D) No, unless the clerk personally observed defendant fail to register.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: A. Correct. FRE 803(10) permits evidence of the absence of a public record when a custodian certifies diligent search and that the record does not exist.
Why the others are wrong:
(B) Incorrect. The statement is offered to prove nonexistence of a record reflecting registration, which FRE 803(10) addresses as an exception.
(C) Incorrect. FRE 803(10) specifically covers absence of a record, distinct from FRE 803(8) public records.
(D) Incorrect. Personal observation of nonregistration is not required; certified diligent search suffices.
Black-letter rule: FRE 803(10): evidence that a matter is not included in public records is not excluded by the hearsay rule if a custodian certifies diligent search and nonexistence of the record.
Trap: Limits public records exception to affirmative entries only.
Memory hook: FRE 803(10): certified diligent search proves record absent.
QUESTION 3 — Character Evidence - Prior Convictions for Impeachment and Other Purposes (hard)
At civil fraud trial, plaintiff offered defendant's ten-year-old conviction for mail fraud to show defendant had a propensity to commit fraud in the current case. Defendant also testified credibly on the stand. Is the prior conviction admissible?
(A) Yes, both as substantive evidence of character under FRE 404(b) and for impeachment under FRE 609 without limit.
(B) Yes for impeachment under FRE 609 if the court balances probative value against prejudice, but not as substantive propensity evidence under FRE 404(b) without proper noncharacter purpose.
(C) No, because FRE 609 bars convictions older than ten years for any purpose.
(D) No, because prior convictions are never admissible in civil cases.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: B. Correct. The conviction may be admissible to impeach defendant's credibility under FRE 609 with balancing, but not to prove propensity to commit fraud under FRE 404(b) absent a proper noncharacter purpose such as intent or knowledge.
Why the others are wrong:
(A) Incorrect. FRE 404(b) bars using prior acts to prove character propensity; FRE 609 impeachment is subject to balancing and time limits.
(C) Incorrect. FRE 609 permits older convictions with balancing notice requirements rather than absolute exclusion at ten years.
(D) Incorrect. Prior convictions may impeach in civil cases subject to FRE 609.
Black-letter rule: FRE 404(b) prohibits using prior crimes to prove character propensity; FRE 609 permits impeachment by certain convictions subject to balancing and time-limit requirements.
Trap: Uses prior fraud conviction as substantive propensity evidence in current fraud case.
Memory hook: 404(b) not for propensity; 609 maybe for impeach with balance.
QUESTION 4 — Evidence - Impeachment of Character Witnesses (medium)
Defendant called witness who testified defendant had an excellent reputation for honesty in the community. Prosecutor asked on cross, without extrinsic evidence: Have you heard that defendant was convicted of check fraud in 2019? Is the prosecutor's question proper?
(A) Yes, on cross of a reputation witness, the examiner may ask about relevant specific instances on have-you-heard or did-you-know basis under FRE 405(a).
(B) Yes, because prior convictions are always substantive evidence of character.
(C) No, because FRE 405 bars any inquiry into specific instances of conduct on cross.
(D) No, unless the prosecutor introduces extrinsic evidence of the conviction first.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: A. Correct. FRE 405(a) permits cross-examination of a reputation or opinion character witness about relevant specific instances of conduct on a have-you-heard or did-you-know basis without extrinsic evidence.
Why the others are wrong:
(B) Incorrect. The question impeaches the character witness's knowledge, not substantive character propensity under FRE 404.
(C) Incorrect. FRE 405(a) specifically allows limited cross about specific instances when testing a character witness.
(D) Incorrect. Extrinsic evidence of specific instances is barred on cross of character witnesses under FRE 405(a).
Black-letter rule: FRE 405(a): on cross of a character witness, inquiry into relevant specific instances is permitted on have-you-heard or did-you-know basis; extrinsic evidence of those instances is not allowed.
Trap: Bars all specific-instance questions on cross of character witnesses.
Memory hook: Reputation witness cross: have you heard X? No extrinsic proof.
📝 Want the full bank? These are a free sample. Drill thousands of NCBE-style MBE questions — with per-choice rationales, named trap analysis, an adaptive weak-spot engine, and a predicted-score tracker — at MBEMax. Your first 10 MBE questions and the entire MPRE bank are free. Part of the ALL4JDS / Bar Exam Project family.
Keep studying: Evidence Master Outline · Evidence One-Sheet · How to Attack the MBE.